If you ever had any doubt that democrats consider your money theirs, Nancy Pelosi just erased that. According to her, if you are “allowed” to keep the money you earn, that’s really stealing from poor people who didn’t earn it. I know this is some dizzying liberal logic, but that’s how they like things. Their hope is to make things so confusing that you can’t tell how bullshit it all is.

The House Republicans are once again trying for an ObamaCare repeal and replace. This newest version would put $130 billion in a high risk pool over 10 years to cover poor people with existing conditions. In addition to that, another $8 billion over 5 years was tacked on to help out people who can’t afford health insurance.

Because Nancy Pelosi can’t math and hates everything that isn’t from her own party, she flipped her lid according to The Hill.

“What you would need is probably about $200 billion over 10 years. What they’ve done is $8 billion over five years. If you divide that by the number of people who have a pre-existing medical condition, you get about [$200 or $300] a year,” said Pelosi.

First off, not everyone with a pre-existing condition can’t afford health insurance, and secondly the GOP is offering up $146 billion over 10 years, which isn’t that far away from the randomly stated $200 billion Pelosi claims is needed.

Despite that, she predicts death and destruction:

“It’s a joke. It’s a very sad, deadly joke,” she said.

Now here’s where the House Minority Leader says it is a crime for you to keep your own money. She says the Republicans want to rush through an ObamaCare repeal because they need the money to offer a tax break.

“They’re in a hurry because they need this money to give a tax break to the wealthiest people in our country. This bill will have the biggest transfer of wealth in the history of our country — Robin Hood in reverse. That is the goal of their tax bill, but they need this money from your healthcare in order to do that,” Pelosi said.

Stay with me on this one Nancy: ObamaCare raised taxes and caused most working people to spend more money on shittier coverage. Repealing this ridiculous law means that working people will be able to keep more of their money. Also, offering a tax break means that working people will be able to keep even more of that money that they earn.

Poor people are not entitled to the fruits of other people’s labor. Letting people keep more of the money they earn is not stealing from poor people because that money was never theirs in the first place. See how that works?

Stealing and redistribution of wealth would be if the government passed a law that forced people to by a product from a private company at inflated prices so that same product could then be given for free to lazy people who have made shitty life choices. You know, kind of like ObamaCare.

I understand Pelosi’s confusion here, she is after all a democrat. In their warped way of thinking, every dollar you earn belongs to them so they can make it rain on the poor in the least efficient and productive way possible.

Nancy Pelosi will be dead when California and the Nation comes to terms with debt but she made sure she secured her family for many decades.

The Pelosi Family has been fleecing us for many decades all under the Democratic leverage and title.

White privileged pays well as a Democrat:

Nancy Pelosi net worth and wealth: Nancy Pelosi is an American politician who has a net worth of $120 million. Nancy Pelosi is most famous for being a member of the U.S. House of Representatives from California's 8th District. In her 2015 wealth disclosure, Nancy and her husband estimated their personal net worth to be between $43 million and $202 million. She was elected to the position of Speaker of the House in 2007, a post she held until 2011. This position made her the highest-ranking female politician in US history. Pelosi was born in Baltimore, Maryland on March 6th, 1940. From 2002 to 2003, she served as the House Minority Whip, and was House Minority Leader from 2003 to 2007. Pelosi is a member of the Democratic Party. She was elected as the Democratic Leader, by House Democrats, on November 17, 2010, making her the Minority Leader in the Republican-controlled House for the 112th Congress.

How much does a Senator make?

Pelosi is of Italian-American descent. Her father, Thomas D'Alesandro Jr., was a Democratic U.S. Congressman from Maryland, and a Mayor of Baltimore. Pelosi's brother, Thomas D'Alesandro III., also a Democrat, was mayor of Baltimore from 1967 to 1971. He declined to run for a second term. She graduated from Trinity College in Washington DC, with a B.A. in political science. She married American businessman Paul Pelosi, who was the owner of the Sacramento Mountain Lions of the United Football League, in 1963. They have five children and eight grandchildren. The Pelosi's currently reside in the Pacific Heights neighborhood of San Francisco. Nancy is very active in the Italian-American community, serving as a board member of the National Organization of Italian American Woman, as well as, serving for 13 years as a board member of the National Italian American Foundation (NIAF). The NIAF gave her a Special Achievement Award for Public Advocacy in 2007 and she continues to be involved in the foundation today. In addition to her political interests, Nancy and her husband also own a large portfolio of San Francisco Bay Area real estate, as well as a vineyard in St. Helena, California, that is valued between $5 million and $25 million.

Nancy Pelosi’s Life in the 0.1 Percent July 1, 2015 4:00 AM

Nancy Pelosi may be one of the most liberal members of the U.S. House, where she runs the Democratic caucus, railing against income inequality and the avarice of the 1 percent. But she also happens to be one of the body’s wealthiest members:

In Washington, she lives in a multimillion-dollar Georgetown condo; she owns a 16-acre vineyard in Napa Valley and a 3,700 square-foot house in San Francisco’s tony Pacific Heights, according to her May 2015 financial disclosure statements. Her May 2015 financial-disclosure statements,showing income that places her in the top one-tenth of the 1 percent of Americans, may surprise some in light of the concern she’s expressed about income equality and the distribution of wealth.

“We’re talking about addressing the disparity in our country of income, where the wealthy people continue to get wealthier,” Pelosi said in 2010 at a United Steelworkers’ event. “That disparity is not just about wages alone,” she added. “That disparity is about ownership and equity. It’s all about fairness in our country.” But even as she’s publicly bemoaned the rich getting richer, Pelosi’s fortune has grown. RELATED: With Harry Reid Gone, Why Is Nancy Pelosi Hanging On? Though financial-disclosure forms list only ranges of assets and liabilities, Pelosi listed between $42.4 million and $199.5 million in assets in 2013, which was enough for Bloomberg Business to deem her the richest member of House leadership from either party.

By 2014, she and her husband, investment banker Paul Pelosi, were doing even better: She reported between $43.4 million and $202 million in assets. (Pelosi’s husband, in fact, has done so well that he tried the quixotic hobby of investing in an alternative to the National Football League, losing between $100,000 and $1 million in 2014.)

Pelosi listed between $42.4 million and $199.5 million in assets in 2013, which was enough to make her the richest member of House leadership from either party. But the financial disclosures don’t just show substantial assets – the Pelosis have gone into lots of debt, too. Pelosi and her husband are currently paying mortgages on seven properties, totaling between approximately $9.8 million and $46.5 million in 2014, likely accruing big tax savings in the process.

The couple also opened home-equity lines of credit on four of these properties, adding between approximately $1.7 million and $6.5 million to their liabilities. Pelosi’s picturesque vineyard in St. Helena, a town just northwest of Napa, Calif., is worth between $5 million and $25 million, according to the disclosure. The property isn’t terribly profitable, though: It yielded somewhere between $5,000 and $15,000 in profits for the Pelosis in 2014. Her condo in Washington’s upscale Georgetown neighborhood costs between $1 million and $5 million, and the four-bedroom house in San Francisco is estimated to be worth about $7.5 million, according to the realty website Zillow.

The mortgages would be crippling to many of the taxpayers Pelosi represents, but the high-rolling couple can afford it. RELATED: Why Pelosi’s Syria Visit Remains Indefensible In addition to the three residential properties, the Pelosis earned between approximately $230,000 and $2.1 million renting out four properties they are currently paying mortgages on in Napa, San Francisco, and Norden, Calif. The Pelosis’ financial-disclosure documents, along with periodic transaction reports released later, reported between approximately $2.1 million and $11.8 million in net income last year (the disclosures generally cover just unearned income, not earned income such as salaries). It’s a good life for a civil servant.

The median household income in California, for comparison, was $57,688 in 2013, according to state census data. Pelosi’s high-roller status hasn’t attracted nearly as much attention as, say, Senator Marco Rubio’s finances, recently the subject of breathless reporting by the New York Times. The Times fretted, for instance, that Rubio had purchased an $80,000 speedboat after earning $800,000 to write a book about his childhood, calling the purchase “extravagant.” The Grey Lady also reported that Rubio purchased three homes over the course of two years, one of which cost $550,000. According to the article, this house “stood out” from the others in Rubio’s West Miami neighborhood. (Even in San Francisco, surely, a $7.5 million house stands out.) RELATED: How Marco Rubio Turned a New York Times Attack into an Asset Harold Evensky, a financial adviser who reviewed Rubio’s disclosures at the request of the Times (the Times did not disclose in its reporting that Evensky was also an Obama donor), called the GOP candidate’s accumulation of debt “staggering.” That might be just as apt a term for Pelosi’s own assets and liabilities. In 2012, the media and Democrats expressed dismay at the sheer wealth of Republicans’ presidential nominee, Mitt Romney. If they’re worried about plutocrats in politics, though, they should acknowledge they have one heading up their own caucus. — Brooke Rogers is an intern at National Review.

AND is Nancy Pelosi the exception? Or the rule? For the first time in history the majority of our lawmakers are millionaires. At the same time, 50 percent of Americans cannot afford to spend $5,000 in an emergency.

AND is Nancy Pelosi the exception? Or the rule? For the first time in history the majority of our lawmakers are millionaires. At the same time, 50 percent of Americans cannot afford to spend $5,000 in an emergency.

AND is Nancy Pelosi the exception? Or the rule? For the first time in history the majority of our lawmakers are millionaires. At the same time, 50 percent of Americans cannot afford to spend $5,000 in an emergency.

Good question, she still thinks that people keeping their hard earned money is theft. What do you want to bet she cheats on her taxes, what do you want to bet she is not very charitable?

See, this is where the conversation stops. You and the rest of the RW seem to be under the impression that--as you said--"people keeping their hard earned money is theft". WRONG. That is NOT what Democrats think.
WHAT WE THINK is that we are a stronger, more successful--more powerful country when EVERY SINGLE American is fed, clothed, educated and healthy. What we think is that the only way to accomplish that is to contribute financially to that end. What we think is that we need each other to succeed -- to prosper--to excel. What we think is that each of us MAY need help at some time in our lives and that with the help of our neighbors, community and nation we'll be lifted up so that WE (in turn) can help some one else.
This is what civilized nations do. We are a group of people living together who depend on one another. We share. We take care of each other.

See, this is where the conversation stops. You and the rest of the RW seem to be under the impression that--as you said--"people keeping their hard earned money is theft". WRONG. That is NOT what Democrats think.
WHAT WE THINK is that we are a stronger, more successful--more powerful country when EVERY SINGLE American is fed, clothed, educated and healthy. What we think is that the only way to accomplish that is to contribute financially to that end. What we think is that we need each other to succeed -- to prosper--to excel. What we think is that each of us MAY need help at some time in our lives and that with the help of our neighbors, community and nation we'll be lifted up so that WE (in turn) can help some one else.
This is what civilized nations do. We are a group of people living together who depend on one another. We share. We take care of each other.

...and you choose to use violence to force those who do not share your beliefs to comply.

I see that as wrong.

To take something from someone else against their will, no matter how good the intentions are behind the act, is theft. Plain and simple.

See, this is where the conversation stops. You and the rest of the RW seem to be under the impression that--as you said--"people keeping their hard earned money is theft". WRONG. That is NOT what Democrats think.
WHAT WE THINK is that we are a stronger, more successful--more powerful country when EVERY SINGLE American is fed, clothed, educated and healthy. What we think is that the only way to accomplish that is to contribute financially to that end. What we think is that we need each other to succeed -- to prosper--to excel. What we think is that each of us MAY need help at some time in our lives and that with the help of our neighbors, community and nation we'll be lifted up so that WE (in turn) can help some one else.
This is what civilized nations do. We are a group of people living together who depend on one another. We share. We take care of each other.

That's the emotional side of it and I don't necessarily disagree with some of it. However Govt types when talking about the peoples money and their right to keep it. One must look at the language the Govt types use.

Revenue.

What is 'Revenue'

Revenue is the amount of money that a company actually receives during a specific period, including discounts and deductions for returned merchandise. It is the "top line" or "gross income" figure from which costs are subtracted to determine net income.

Revenue is calculated by multiplying the price at which goods or services are sold by the number of units or amount sold.

This is the trick they use, they take the language and appropriate it in order to justify what they do. Take the word "revenue", the Govt makes no product, sells nothing and generates nothing in terms of income. Taxation does not create "revenue". Taxation is money confiscation, from who? You and I.

"Expenditure". As it pertains to taxes, especially in relation to allowing people to keep their OWN money is a term they use to make us feel guilty. Letting people keep their own damn money is NOT an "expenditure".

When using these terms, if you give the Govt free reign the assumption MUST be that ALL monies begin as the Govts.

There is nothing emotional about a strong, powerful, educated society. So let's just throw that out. Anyone who suffers from a chronic medical condition (and maybe you know this from personal experience) will tell you that IF WE can't function---if we can't work or think or perform---we are pretty much useless. We can't contribute to the work force--to society. We can't feed our families. We can't provide homes for ourselves. We can't educate ourselves or others. We certainly can't build bridges or roads or schools or libraries or hospitals. We can't physically do anything...and that includes creating a strong military.
Healthcare and education are the cornerstones of every country's strength. Providing just those two basics is sensible and responsible as well. Why would we want ANYONE--any American to be uneducated and sick? How does that support our goals--our success--our prosperity......in every endeavor.
This is what is meant by the bigger picture. It's called vision and there's nothing emotional about it.